The Mission of Demythologizing

Rudolf Bultmann’s Dialectical Theology

David W. Congdon

Fortress Press Minneapolis THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

Rudolf Bultmann’s Dialectical Theology

Copyright © 2015 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Visit http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/ or write to Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440.

Cover image: Oliver D. Crisp, “Blue Bultmann,” oil on board, 2014, used with permission of the artist.

Cover design: Joe Reinke

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

Print ISBN: 978-1-4514-8792-3 eBook ISBN: 978-1-4514-9657-4

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984.

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

This book was produced using PressBooks.com, and PDF rendering was done by PrinceXML. Contents

Preface ix Abbreviations xiii A Note on Translation xv

Introduction: Bultmann, Missionary to Modernity xvii Part I: The Myth of the Whale and the Elephant

1. The Problem: The Mythical Picture of Bultmann 3 1.1. The Myth 4 1.1.1. “One Way or the Other!” 4 1.1.2. “They Lack a Common Key” 9 1.1.3. The Task 12 1.2. Earlier Attempts at Demythologizing the Myth of the Whale and the Elephant 14 1.2.1. Eberhard Jüngel 14 1.2.1.1. Responsible Talk of God 16 1.2.1.2. Analogy and Paradoxical Identity? 22 1.2.2. Christophe Chalamet 35 1.2.2.1. The Herrmannian Origin of Dialectical Theology? 35 1.2.2.2. Two Kinds of Criticism 46 1.2.2.3. Bultmann’s Law-Determining Gospel 52 1.2.2.4. Two Complementary Perspectives 69

2. Reinterpreting the Myth: A Periodization of the Barth-Bultmann Relationship 75 2.1. Getting Outside the Mythical Picture 76 2.2. Protodialectical Liberalism: 1903–1919 79 2.3. Early Dialectical Theology: 1919–1924 93 2.4. Turning Points: 1925–1929 111 2.4.1. Excursus: Barth’s Theological Development 123 2.5. Dissolution of the Dialectical School: 1930–1933 130 2.6. New Directions: 1934–1939 156 2.6.1. Excursus: Bultmann and the Third Reich 176 2.7. Radicalization: 1940–1950 180 2.8. Auseinandersetzung: 1950–1962 188 2.9. Retrospective: 1962–1968 223 2.10. Theses Toward a “Common Key” 228 Part II: The Mission of Dialectical Theology

3. The Missionary Essence of Dialectical Theology 237 3.1. The Missionary Origins of Dialectical Theology 237 3.1.1. The Dialectical Revolution 237 3.1.2. The Other Aufruf and the Missionary Origins of the Dialectical Revolution 240 3.1.2.1. The Aufruf of the Twenty-Nine 243 3.1.2.2. The Question of Mission and the Origins of Barth’s Theology 247 3.2. The Dialectical Thesis 259 3.2.1. Dialectical Theology in Historical Context 261 3.2.1.1. The Luther-Renaissance and the Doctrine of Justification 262 3.2.1.2. The Rediscovery of New Testament Eschatology 272 3.2.1.3. The Rise of the Colonial-Missionary and Ecumenical Movements 282 3.2.2. Dialectical Theology: A Modern Apocalyptic Reformation 288 3.3. The Missionary Practice of Dialectical Theology 292

4. The Mission of Bultmann’s Dialectical Theology 305 4.1. Bultmann as Theologian of Mission 306 4.2. The Eschatological Mission of God: Theology without Objectification 309 4.2.1. Bultmann and the Discovery of the Eschatological Kerygma 310 4.2.2. “Gott ist nicht eine Gegebenheit”: The Eschatological Transcendence of God 316 4.2.2.1. Modern Theology and the Problem of God 317 4.2.2.2. The God of the Future: The Eschatological Message of Jesus 322 4.2.2.3. “Ganz Andere”: Eschatological Transcendence 327 4.2.2.4. God’s Being Is in Coming: Toward an Eschatological Theontology 339 4.2.3. The Quest for the Kerygmatic Christ: The Eschatological Event of Salvation 345 4.2.3.1. The Eschatological Dass: Against the So-Called Historical Jesus 346 4.2.3.2. The Eschatological Ta t : Justification as the Turning Point of the Ages 354 4.2.3.3. The Eschatological Heilsereignis: Christ as Event 364 4.2.4. Theology without Objectification: The Mission of an Eschatological God 369 4.3. The Eschatological Mission of Theology: Theology without Universalization 374 4.3.1. The Ontic and the Ontological: The Eschatological Theme of Theology 375 4.3.2. The fides quae and the fides qua: The Eschatological Object of Theology 382 4.3.3. “Reden von” and “Reden über”: The Eschatological Task of Theology 388 4.3.4. Theology without Universalization: The Mission of an Eschatological Science 404 4.4. Bultmann’s Correlationist Dialectical Theology 407 4.4.1. Beyond Realism and Idealism 407 4.4.2. Correlationism 412 4.4.3. Dialectical Theological Correlationism 417 4.4.4. Bultmann’s Correlationist Dialectical Theology 425 4.5. “The Church Is Always a Missionary Church”: The Missionary Significance of Bultmann’s Dialectical Theology 431 Part III: The Mission of Demythologizing

5. The Truth of Myth and the Necessity of Demythologizing 439 5.1. The Truth of Myth and the Necessity of Demythologizing 439 5.1.1. The Truth of Myth 441 5.1.2. The Necessity of Demythologizing 446 5.1.3. The Christological Unity of Myth and Demythologizing 451 5.2. Two Excursuses on the Necessity of Demythologizing 459 5.2.1. The Problem of a γνῶσις τῶν πάντων: An Excursus on Myth and Science 459 5.2.2. Theology as the Theory of Praxis: An Excursus on Jüngel’s Glauben und Verstehen 471 5.3. Kerygmatic Demythologizing: “Das Wort ward Fleisch” 480 5.3.1. The Word Made Flesh: The Paradoxical Identity of Myth and Demythologizing 482 5.3.2. Sola fide: The Hermeneutic of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone 496 5.4. Toward a New Interpretation of Demythologizing 499

6. Toward a Dialectical Intercultural Hermeneutic 503 6.1. In Search of a New Conceptuality 503 6.2. Intercultural Theology: Mission as Hermeneutics 505 6.3. The Intercultural Critique of Bultmann 511 6.3.1. Selbstverständnis as Selbstgespräch 511 6.3.2. An Existentially Acultural Kerygma 516 6.4. Intercultural Hermeneutics: Deconstruction and Reconstruction 522 6.4.1. Missionary Deconstruction: Constantinianism and Volkstheologie 523 6.4.1.1. The Concept of Culture 524 6.4.1.2. The Problem of Constantinianism 532 6.4.1.3. The Intercultural Critique of Volksreligion 535 6.4.2. Missionary Reconstruction: Understanding and Interpretation 538 6.4.2.1. Dialectical Strangeness: Toward a Model of Intercultural Encounter 540 6.4.2.2. Understanding as Praxis: Toward a Hermeneutic of Konvivenz 549 6.4.2.3. Dialectical Translation: Appropriation and Transpropriation 556 6.5. Translationism: Interpretation without Guarantees 566

7. The Problem of Myth and the Program of Deconstantinizing 569 7.1. Introduction to a New Interpretation of Demythologizing 570 7.2. Demythologizing in the Context of Modern Mythology 576 7.2.1. Excursus: Demythologizing as a Repoliticizing of God-Talk 587 7.3. The Clarification and Absolutization of Myth 591 7.3.1. The Concept of Myth: Bultmann’s Clarification and His Critics 591 7.3.2. The Absolutizing of Myth: Mythology as Anknüpfungspunkt in Thielicke 598 7.4. The Program of Deconstantinizing: Theology without Weltanschauungen 607 7.4.1. The Problem of Objectification 609 7.4.1.1. Objectification and Mythology 611 7.4.1.2. Mythology and Analogy 616 7.4.1.3. Mythology as a Primitive analogia entis 621 7.4.1.4. Demythologizing as a Critical analogia fidei 626 7.4.2. The Problem of the Mythical Weltbild 638 7.4.2.1. Weltbild and “Sitz im Leben” 639 7.4.2.2. Weltbild and Mythology 643 7.4.2.3. Weltbild as Objectification? 646 7.4.2.4. Weltbild as Culture 652 7.4.2.5. Weltbild, Wissenschaft, and Wirkungszusammenhang 661 7.4.2.6. Excursus: Weltbild and Attunement 670 7.4.3. The Problem of Constantinianism 676 7.4.3.1. Weltbild and Objektivierung 676 7.4.3.2. Primitive and Modern Constantinianism 678 7.4.3.3. The Contemporary Task of Deconstantinizing 683

8. Eschatological Existence and Existentialist Translation 687 8.1. Introduction to Existentialist Interpretation 688 8.2. The Task of Demythologizing 690 8.3. Existentialist Interpretation and the Hermeneutical Problem: Vorverständnis as Aneignung 695 8.3.1. Objectivity-in-Subjectivity: The Presupposition for Intercultural Encounter 698 8.3.2. Preunderstanding: Understanding as Appropriation 702 8.3.2.1. The Origin of Preunderstanding 702 8.3.2.2. Sachkritik and Preunderstanding 714 8.3.2.2.1. Excursus: Barth and Bultmann on Sachkritik 723 8.3.2.3. Preunderstanding, Appropriation, and Translation 737 8.3.2.4. Preunderstanding and the Cultural Life-Context of the Interpreter 743 8.3.3. Preunderstanding and Philosophy: Once Again the Ontological and the Ontic 746 8.3.4. The Dialectical Task of Appropriation 751 8.4. Existentialist Interpretation and the Eschatological Event: Selbstverständnis as Übereignung 755 8.4.1. Being-in-Becoming: Translation as Intercultural Encounter 756 8.4.2. Entweltlichung: Self-Understanding as Transpropriation 766 8.4.2.1. Entweltlichung in the New Testament 767 8.4.2.2. Entweltlichung as Eschatological Existence 773 8.4.2.3. Entweltlichung as an Eschatological Hermeneutic 782 8.4.3. The Dialectical Task of Transpropriation 788 8.5. Demythologizing Existentialist Interpretation: Responding to Objections 789 8.5.1. Jürgen Moltmann 789 8.5.2. Oswald Bayer 800 8.5.3. Robert Jenson 804 8.6. Demythologizing as Missionary Existence 823

Conclusion: The Future of Demythologizing 829

Appendix A: Appeal of German Churchmen and Professors to Protestant Christians in Foreign Lands (1914) 837 Appendix B: The Christian Meaning of Faith, Love, Hope (1925) 845 Appendix C: Leitsätze of Rudolf Bultmann (1925) 851 Appendix D: On the Concept of “Myth” (1942–1952) 853

Bibliography 865 Index 923 Preface

The present study is an expanded version of my dissertation. The oral defense occurred in January 2014 at Princeton Theological Seminary. I must begin by acknowledging my gratitude to my advisor, Bruce L. McCormack, who, over lunch in April 2008, proposed that I write on Rudolf Bultmann. I could not have asked for a more supportive . I also wish to thank the other two members of my disser- Doktorvater tation committee, James F. Kay and Darrell L. Guder, for their guid- ance during my research and their assistance in the revision of the manuscript. I am indebted to Kate Skrebutenas, the reference librarian at Princeton Seminary, for assisting me in my research. I am additionally appreciative of the Special Collections staff at the Princeton Seminary library, especially those who oversee the Center for Barth Studies, superbly curated at the time I was in Princeton by Clifford Anderson. In the summer of 2012 I left Princeton for another community in Downers Grove, Illinois, where I joined the editorial team at Inter- Varsity Press. The bulk of this dissertation was written after I joined IVP, and that is a credit to the support I have received from my coworkers.

ix THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

I am grateful to the Bultmann heirs for permission to publish an English translation of “Der christliche Sinn von Glaube, Liebe, Hoff- nung: Skizze des am 11. Juni 1925 vor der 50. Versammlung evangelischer Religionslehrer an den höheren Lehranstalten der Rheinprov- inz gehaltenen Vortrages.”1 I am also grateful to Mohr Siebeck for permission to publish English translations of two essays by Bultmann: “Leitsätze von Univ.-Prof. D. Bultmann (Marburg)”2 and “Über den Begriff ‘Mythos.’”3 The latter essay long remained unpublished as part of the Bultmann ; it deserves a wide audience, and I am glad Nachlass it now has the chance to be read by many more people. Additionally, my thanks to the —in particular to Journal of Theological Interpretation its publisher, Jim Eisenbraun, and its editor, Joel Green—for permission to use material previously published in an article with that journal.4 Several people deserve special thanks. Christophe Chalamet was an external reader of my dissertation and provided immensely helpful feedback; he also kindly sent me an early article by Bultmann. John Flett gave me valuable comments on two chapters and introduced me to the field of intercultural theology. Nathaniel Maddox assisted my research after I left Princeton and served as my liaison with the PhD Studies Office at Princeton Seminary. Alexander Massmann assisted

1. Rudolf Bultmann, “Der christliche Sinn von Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung: Skizze des am 11. Juni 1925 vor der 50. Versammlung evangelischer Religionslehrer an den höheren Lehranstalten der Rheinprovinz gehaltenen Vortrages,” Zeitschrift für den evangelischen Religionsunterricht an 36 (1925): 170–72. höheren Lehranstalten 2. Published originally in Rudolf Bultmann and Friedrich Feigel, “Die neueste Wendung der evang. Theologie (K. Barth, Gogarten usw.) und der evang. Religionsunterricht an höheren Schulen,” 18 (1925): 180–82. Reprinted Monatsblätter für den Evangelischen Religionsunterricht in Rudolf Bultmann, “Leitsätze R. Bultmanns,” in Rudolf Bultmann and Friedrich Gogarten, , ed. Hermann Götz Göckeritz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), Briefwechsel 1921–1967 279–80. 3. Rudolf Bultmann, “Über den Begriff ‘Mythos’ [ca. 1942–1952],” in Bultmann–Althaus , ed. Matthias Dreher and Gotthard Jasper (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Briefwechsel 1929–1966 2012), 89–96. 4. David W. Congdon, “Kerygma and Community: A Response to R. W. L. Moberly’s Revisiting of Bultmann,” 8 (2014): 1–21. Journal of Theological Interpretation

x PREFACE me in translating several German passages. James Gordon generously allowed me to use his carrel at Wheaton College and requested many books that were essential to my research. Oliver Crisp kindly agreed to paint a portrait of Bultmann for the cover, for which I am most obliged; it is a striking image. My editor at Fortress Press, Michael Gibson, showed keen interest in this project from the start, and I am thankful to him and the whole Fortress team for their help in bringing the work to publication. I am deeply thankful for two friends in particular: Travis McMaken and Chris TerryNelson. There is hardly a page that has not been worked out in conversation with them. I owe them both profound debts of gratitude for their honesty, humor, and wise counsel. This book is dedicated to my parents, Jon and Harriet Congdon, and especially to my wife, Amy, whose forbearance, generosity, and succor have been the buttress of my life and work.

Abbreviations

Rudolf Bultmann, . 4 vols. GuV Glauben und Verstehen: Gesammelte Aufsätze Tübingen: Mohr, 1933–1965.

Karl Barth, . 4 vols. Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer KD Die kirchliche Dogmatik Verlag, 1932–1970.

Karl Barth, . Edited by Hermann RI Der Römerbrief (Erste Fassung) 1919 Schmidt. Gesamtausgabe 2. Zürich: TVZ, 1985.

Karl Barth, Edited by Cornelis van RII Der Römerbrief (Zweite Fassung) 1922. der Kooi and Katja Tolstaja. Gesamtausgabe 2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2010.

RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Martin Luther, . Weimar: WA D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe H. Böhlau, 1883– .

xiii

A Note on Translation

Rudolf Bultmann fared better than most German scholars when it came to English translation, but translations of his writings were still often inconsistent or misleading or simply wrong. For this reason, all translations in this work are my own. I have followed three basic principles: (a) accuracy according to material content, (b) con- sistency in expression, and (c) gender inclusivity. The first principle simply means that I have made my decisions based on an overall understanding of Bultmann’s theological project. The second principle means that I have attempted consistently to translate the same root words with the same English counterparts. For instance, I have translated as “occurrence” and as “event” in order Geschehen Ereignis to help readers identify which German word is being used. The terms and are consistently translated as “existentialist” existential existentiell and “existential,” respectively, according to the convention of earlier Bultmann scholars, even though the distinction is largely ignored today. In continuity with more recent scholarship, I have main- not tained the earlier tradition of differentiating between and geschichtlich by using the terms “historic” and “historical.” I have instead historisch used “historical” for both and indicated the German term where context alone did not clarify the meaning. I have generally translated as “existence,” though on other occasions I have left it as Dasein

xv THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

“Dasein” in order to distinguish it from or to highlight Bult- Existenz mann’s engagement with Heidegger. The third principle means that I have used gender-inclusive expressions for both God and human beings. I have employed reflexives like “Godself” when speaking of God and often used plural expressions in place of Bultmann’s singular where human beings are concerned. This has often meant abandon- ing a literal rendition of Bultmann’s text, but the result is more faithful to his meaning.

xvi Introduction: Bultmann—Missionary to Modernity

What is the condition of possibility for a theology? In pursu- modern ing this question, we are not asking what it is that makes a theology modern as opposed to, say, premodern. We are rather asking, in typical transcendental form: Given that there is such a thing as modern theology, what must be the case in order to make such a theology possible? What must be true about the Christian faith to make sense, for example, of Karl Barth’s “reconstruction of Christian orthodoxy” under the conditions of modernity?1 At a minimum, an answer to this problem must be that Christianity is intrinsically capable of being recon- . But then, what is it about the Christian message, the gospel, structed that permits, even empowers, this process of reconstruction?2 How does one carry out this process responsibly? Assuming that the notion of modern theology is not dismissed outright as oxymoronic—on the basis of the false belief that the conditions for modernity are antithetical to the conditions for Chris- tianity—a typical rejoinder is that this line of inquiry is nevertheless

1. Bruce L. McCormack, (Grand Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 17. 2. The concepts of “gospel” and “Christian message”—used as synonyms for “kerygma”—will be defined in later chapters. In essence these terms identify what is permanent or transcultural in Christianity.

xvii THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

asking about the conditions of possibility for theology, under- liberal stood as a modern reinterpretation of Christianity.3 The assumption is that such a theology is beyond the bounds of genuine Christianity. Liberalism is repudiated as an “accommodation” to modernity, which conforms the gospel to an alien context that demands a thorough reconstruction of traditional doctrines.4 Ironically, at the same time that liberalism is disparaged as an accommodation to modernity, mission is praised as a “contextualization” of the gospel for a particular culture. This presents us with a dilemma: the same logic rejected under the name of liberalism is affirmed under the name of mission. The only discernible difference, it seems, is chronological.5 Rein-

3. This is an intentionally broad definition of “liberal theology.” Bultmann refers to liberalism in generally pejorative terms to indicate a very specific form of theology against which he and Barth were reacting, one marked by idealism and historicism in particular. But Bultmann also acknowledges that his own theology contributes to a broader and less problematic conception of liberal theology, and it is the positive sense of the term that I have in mind here. 4. This view is represented most recently by Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology: (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013). According to From Reconstruction to Deconstruction Olson’s narrative, modern theology is a struggle between those who “accommodated” modernity (liberals) and those who “rejected” it (conservatives and fundamentalists), while dialectical theology offered a third way that neither accommodated modernity nor rejected theology’s responsibility in the world. Karl Barth, on this reading, “held firmly to the gospel of Jesus Christ, within a supernatural frame of reference, seeking to communicate it in as relevant a way [as] possible to contemporary culture” (ibid., 712). Adherence to the supernatural, however, is a mark of the rejection of modernity, and mere “relevant communication” does not count as genuine interpretation. Conservatives would never say their talk of God is irrelevant to the modern world. As we will see, Olson has missed the fact that what differentiates dialectical theology from liberal theology is whether it accommodates modernity. Whereas liberalism recon- not structs Christianity in to modernity, dialectical theology claims that ongoing recon- response struction and accommodation has always been basic to Christian faith as such. 5. Another possible point of difference between the two is that crosscultural mission today does not change the (traditional, orthodox) content but merely the linguistic mode of expression. By contrast, so the thinking goes, liberalism is a change in content as well as form. But this begs a number of questions. Most importantly, it assumes we know what the content actually is, as if the substance of the faith is a universal, self-evident given. Consequently, it also assumes we know that liberalism change the content. But this ends in a vicious circle. Liberalism is does defined as whatever changes the content of the faith, but the content of the faith is defined over against the changes of liberalism. The result is that the goalposts continually shift: we define as “liberal” whomever we do not like by defining as “gospel” whatever it is we think that person has reinterpreted. To define the content in terms of some set of conciliar dogmas or confes- sional doctrines is no clarification, since those dogmas and doctrines still have to be interpreted and are just as culturally situated as the biblical text. Beyond the question of content, there is

xviii INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY

terpreting crossculturally is the gospel; reinterpreting crossculturally , apparently, is heresy. Christianity can be reconstructed syn- over time chronically but not diachronically. Matters are only made more con- fusing when we find Paul’s method in 1 Cor 9:19-23 defined as “missionary accommodation.”6 Where exactly does mission end and the threat of liberalism begin? The problem represented by the apparent tension between liberalism and mission comes to expression, however obliquely, in Joseph Cahill’s retrospective on Rudolf Bultmann’s legacy. “All forms of liberalism, be they political, social, economic, or religious,” he writes, “are ultimately based on accommodation—accommodating old truths to new realities.”7 Later in the article, he then situates Bultmann in the context of “missionary efforts at propagating the gospel”:

[Matteo] Ricci’s visit to Nan-ch’angin in 1595, to Nanking in 1597, to Peking in 1601, and [Roberto] de Nobili’s work in India, beginning in 1610, were brief and early flashes across the religious sky—efforts at accommodation to the realistically pluralistic world which have only recently begun to have a permanent effect. The basic question they and

the additional issue that the form–content distinction wielded by conservatives in these debates is culturally and hermeneutically naïve, as if there is any content not already shaped by cultural presuppositions and norms. Indeed, the great irony of this approach is that it is formally identical to Adolf von Harnack’s husk-kernel distinction, which is a hallmark of classic liberal theology. The conservative defense of mission against liberalism ends up only repeating liberalism—and, in particular, one of its more problematic instances. The point is that the logic supporting mission is essentially identical to the logic supporting at least a basic form of liberal theology (understood as theology reconstructed within modernity). Rejecting liberalism tout means either rejecting mission altogether or defining it in such a way that one ends by court endorsing an imperialistic (i.e., noncontextualizing) mode of mission. 6. Michael Barram, “The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic,” 61, no. 1 (2007): 42–58, at 55. Certainly missiologists are keen on differentiating Interpretation contextualization from accommodation, but the distinction is a slippery one. Contextualization is a broad, ambiguous concept whose meaning is contested by those on the “right” and “left.” The very attempt to differentiate it from accommodation is itself motivated by the desire not to be perceived as “liberal.” The assumption is that liberalism surrenders the gospel to culture and thereby exchanges orthodoxy for some kind of heterodoxy. This raises questions about whether the motivation to preserve orthodoxy (whose orthodoxy?) is a valid motivation and constraint on the theological and missionary endeavor. 7. P. Joseph Cahill, “Bultmann: Reminiscence and Legacy,” 47, no. 3 (1986): Theological Studies 473–96, at 483.

xix THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

their immediate followers raised (now surfacing in serious fashion) was whether or not different styles manifested in varying religious conven- tions, genres, habits, and linguistic modes of expression could conceal similar religious substances. In his own way, Bultmann raised the same question but confined it to the Bible and “modern man.” Could Chris- tianity, by contact with supposedly alien religions, be subject to creative transformations? Could divergent axial mythologies be modified by deferential encounter? Could the assumed hegemony of one culturally postulated form of claimed transcendence create a common universe of discourse with another form? These questions posed by de Nobili and Ricci were logical extensions of the Bultmannian problematic.8

While the notion of “religious substances” is not exactly faithful to Bultmann’s thought, the problematic that Cahill describes certainly is. Unfortunately, he does not go on to thematize the question of mission and accommodation. He instead fleshes out the present cultural situation in terms of a “new axial period,” that is, a period shaped by new convictions, assumptions, and myths that shape one’s self-identity and consciousness. Cahill describes this new age as “dominated by historical consciousness.”9 By referring to historical consciousness Cahill draws on themes developed extensively by Bultmann’s contemporaries and students, especially Friedrich Gogarten and Gerhard Ebeling. According to Gogarten, the old metaphysical and teleological interpretation of the world and our existence in it, which understood the world to be the unfolding of an overarching divine plan, was replaced by a historical interpretation:

Just as the contents of a play are established beforehand in the major and minor roles which appear in it, so too the occurrences in this history are predetermined in the “spiritual substances of all hierarchies,” which “are united in the church into a mystical body, which extends from the trinity and the angels that are nearest to the trinity down to the beggar at

8. Ibid., 491–92. 9. Ibid., 494.

xx INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY

the church door and to the serf kneeling humbly in the furthest corner of the church to receive the sacrifice of the Mass.” But since history is understood in this way as a kingdom of metaphysical essences or substances, moved teleologically in itself and encompassing the entire world in this teleology, we lose precisely what we understand as the actual occurrence, namely, the living personal experiences of particular indi- viduals in their distinctiveness and responsibility, their historical significance. Their historicity is taken away when history anticipates them by occurring within the framework of metaphysical essences. And it is only because this metaphysical framework contains the life of human beings with all that has happened that they have a part in the history which takes place there.10

Modernity is the age in which this metaphysical understanding of history was called radically and irrevocably into question, as indicated paradigmatically by the rise of the historical-critical method. “Only with the collapse of traditional western metaphysics, i.e., with the loss of its self-evident character, did the historicity of existence fully enter into consciousness,” out of which arose “the freedom, but also the absolute necessity, to regard the historical [ ] in its pure Historische historicalness [ ].”11 No longer was the hierarchical and Historizität essentialist “chain of being” taken for granted. No longer was the ecclesiastical tale of our given place in God’s order accepted on faith. It was no longer assumed that the old stories could narrate each person’s identity. For those institutions and ideologies that depend on this authority, new strategies were devised to shore up faith: most notably, Roman Catholics put forward the doctrine of papal infalli- bility in the early 1870s, while Reformed Protestants formulated the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in the early 1880s. Both sides were able to claim that such views were held long before they were codified in

10. Friedrich Gogarten, (Stuttgart: Vorwerk, 1953), 32. Gogarten is Entmythologisierung und Kirche here quoting from Wilhelm Dilthey, , 337. Gesammelte Schriften 1 11. Gerhard Ebeling, “Die Bedeutung der historisch-kritischen Methode für die protestantische Theologie und Kirche [1950],” in (Tübingen: Mohr, 1960), 1–49, at 33. Wort und Glaube I

xxi THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

their modern form, and yet it is significant that these doctrines were codified when they were. This brings us back to our starting question: what is the condition of possibility for a modern theology? To put it another way, what enables theology to address the collapse of traditional metaphysics and the rise of modern historical consciousness while remaining in genuine contact with the kerygmatic content of faith? How is it possible, to use Cahill’s phrase, for Christianity to “be subject to creative transformations?”12 The only satisfactory answer to this question is one that understands the logic behind such creative reconstruction as to Christianity. Understood appropriately, is internal mission this logic. It is what makes the transformations of Christian faith possible, insofar as mission is essentially the pursuit of vernacular modes of Christian existence. Mission is the daring venture of theological reconstruction. It articulates the possibility and process of (re)interpreting the faith for a new time and place. The task now, following on Cahill’s suggestive remarks, is to understand this missionary impulse at the heart of Christianity in conjunction with the hermeneutical problem posed by historical consciousness. In order to address the new mission situation of modernity we need a theology, conditioned by historical consciousness, that incorporates this missionary, and thus hermeneutical, logic into its very understanding of the gospel. This brings us to the immediate concern of the present study.

* * * * *

In 1965 Eberhard Jüngel put forward a bold thesis regarding the theological relationship between Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann:

12. Cahill, “Bultmann,” 491–92.

xxii INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY

As paradoxical as it may sound, Barth actually accorded to his doctrine of the Trinity (1932) the same function that the program of demythologizing performs in the theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Difference of meth- ods and results here and there cannot obscure this. This state of affairs ought to give cause for reflection to the rash and superficial among Bultmann’s critics, and indeed to critics of Barth who are always ready and willing to accuse the of speculation, but who Kirchliche Dogmatik are unwilling and not at all ready to read it. If we understand Bult- mann’s program as an effort at appropriate speaking of God (and so about humanity), and if we see this effort fulfilled in not objectifying God (or letting God be objectified) as an It or He, but in bringing God to speech as You [ ] and thus appropriately, then we cannot fail to see Du a striking parallel to the meaning Barth accords (and gives) to the doctrine of the Trinity.13

Since the book within which this statement appears was written as a response to Helmut Gollwitzer’s supposedly Barthian critique of the Bultmannian work of Herbert Braun,14 Jüngel’s words, along with the overall work itself, are a rebuke to those who would pit Barth’s theology against Bultmann’s, as if the ostensible marginalization of anthropological relevance in Barth’s dogmatics were something wor- thy of praise. The rest of Jüngel’s short but incisive “paraphrase” of aims to demonstrate the radical implications Die kirchliche Dogmatik of Barth’s theology in a way that brings the latter much closer to the hermeneutical theologians, even if certain key differences remain. What Jüngel does not do, save for a brief and remarkable footnote we will look at in more detail in a later chapter, is provide the other half of the argument and show how Bultmann’s demythologizing performs the same function as Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity. It is the

13. Eberhard Jüngel, Gottes Sein ist im Werden: Verantwortliche Rede vom Sein Gottes bei Karl Barth: , 4th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986), 33–34. Eine Paraphrase 14. Helmut Gollwitzer, (Munich: Kaiser, 1963). Cf. Die Existenz Gottes im Bekenntnis des Glaubens Herbert Braun, (Tübingen: Mohr, Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 1962).

xxiii THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING aim, at least in part, of the present work to supply in detail what Jün- gel merely suggested. At the same time, Jüngel’s claim is not strong enough. For one thing, to say that Barth and Bultmann bring God to speech as “You” and thus “appropriately” is hardly clear. No theologian would want to say that she brings God to speech as an “It.” We need much more specification about what “speaking appropriately of God” actually means in practice. Jüngel provides specification with regard to Barth throughout the rest of the book, but it is not clear to what extent we can say the same of Bultmann. Second, the doctrine of the Trinity is not the heart of Barth’s theology. To be sure, it plays a vital role at the start of his , but his dogmatics as such is deter- Kirchliche Dogmatik mined by norms that go back to the origins of his dialectical theology in 1916, well before he had developed fully-formed doctrines. More- over, these norms, and not his doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in 1932, are what condition the later volumes of his dogmatics. So in order to make sense of the relation between Barth and Bultmann we will need to clarify what norms his dogmatic theology. In short, we need to define just what makes dialectical theology . Either dialectical Bultmann’s program of demythologizing is only consistent with the Barth of 1932—in which case Jüngel’s observation is of highly limited value—or it is consistent with Barth’s entire theological project, in which case we need to understand precisely what that project is. If the latter is the case, as we shall argue, then we are thrust into a complicated debate over the nature and development of Barth’s theology. We will wade into some of these disputes in the first two chapters. The goal is to make sense of two claims, both represented well by the work of Bruce McCormack: (a) that Barth is consistently dialectical until the end, and (b) that Barth’s dialectical theology goes through various stages of development.15 Both claims have a unique bearing on the understanding of Bultmann’s theology. For

xxiv INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY

instance, it is widely acknowledged that Barth and Bultmann were at one point close allies, even if only for a few years in the early 1920s. Presumably, then, Bultmann must have shared Barth’s dialectical theology in some respect. Two questions then arise that correspond to the two claims above: (a) what was the nature of this shared theology, and (b) who departed from whom? The standard line of interpretation has been that Bultmann was a theological tergiversator who left the dialectical movement in favor of nineteenth-century liberal theology. Barth was the first to lodge this criticism. In a 1930 letter to Bultmann, Barth said that he could only see Bultmann’s recent work as indicative of “a massive return to the fleshpots of Egypt.”16 This interpretation has remained largely unchallenged, no doubt because Barth’s star has risen while Bultmann’s has fallen precipitously.17 Not much has changed since 1959, when Otto Schnübbe observed that “Bultmann’s concept of myth and the demand for demythologizing has dialectical theology as its presupposition. Oddly enough, this has not been clearly recognized in the discussion.”18 The purpose of the present work is to clarify this point.

15. For the former see Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); for the latter, see Genesis and Development, 1909–1936 McCormack, . Orthodox and Modern 16. Karl Barth to Rudolf Bultmann, 5 February 1930, in Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, , ed. Bernd Jaspert, 2nd ed., Gesamtausgabe 5 (Zürich: Theologischer Briefwechsel 1911–1966 Verlag, 1994), 99. 17. The most notable attempt to that end is Christophe Chalamet, Dialectical Theologians: Wilhelm (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005). Chalamet’s Herrmann, Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann study will be the subject of close analysis in the opening chapter, so I will not spend much time on it here. Suffice it to say that his work suffers from an overly formal definition of dialectic that joins Barth and Bultmann by uniting them to their common teacher, Wilhelm Herrmann. While a new appreciation for Herrmann is highly significant, this approach mutes the dis- tinctive material insights that characterize Barth’s theological revolution. In particular, as I will argue, these insights are eschatological and missionary in nature. This critique notwithstanding, Chalamet’s work is an excellent piece of analysis that rewards careful study. 18. Otto Schnübbe, Die Existenzbegriff in der Theologie Rudolf Bultmanns: Ein Beitrag zur Interpreta- (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 111. tion der theologischen Systematic Bultmanns

xxv THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

In order to understand what is wrong about the standard narrative, we need to look back at the origins of dialectical theology. What is the true nature of the revolution Barth inaugurated? If Barth’s theology is fundamentally about speaking appropriately of God, what does this mean? We are now in a position to unite our initial constructive inquiry into the conditions of possibility of modern theology with our historical inquiry into the nature of dialectical theology, and thus the relationship between Bultmann and Barth. My thesis is as follows: dialectical theology is essentially a theology governed by a missionary . logic, and demythologizing is the extension of this logic into hermeneutics In other words, dialectical theology is the consistent and systematic development of the missionary (i.e., hermeneutical) insight that forms the condition of possibility for modern theology, and Barth and Bult- mann develop this insight in distinct, but not intrinsically incompat- ible, ways. This basic logic is what founds appropriate talk of God. We can therefore trace Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity and Bult- mann’s program of demythologizing from this common missionary starting point. Barth and Bultmann were responding to the chal- lenge of historical consciousness, seeking to think the gospel under the conditions of modernity. Dialectical theology thinks his- within torical consciousness reducing faith to history, that is, with- without out reducing kerygma to culture. Similarly, demythologizing does not reductively accommodate or conform the gospel to modernity, as many of its critics allege. As Bultmann states in his response to Karl Jaspers, “the goal of demythologizing is not . . . to make the faith acceptable to modern people, but rather to make it clear what the Christian faith is.”19 Clarifying the faith for people in a particular cultural situation is the very definition of the missionary enterprise.

19. Rudolf Bultmann, “Antwort an Karl Jaspers [1953],” in Kerygma und Mythos, Band 3: Das , ed. Hans-Werner Bartsch (Hamburg-Volksdorf: Reich, 1954), Gespräch mit der Philosophie 49–59, at 50.

xxvi INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY

In carrying out his hermeneutical program, Bultmann is nothing less than a missionary to modernity.

* * * * *

I will prosecute this thesis over eight chapters that fall into three parts. The first part (chaps. 1–2) sets up the problem this study interrogates and provides the necessary historical background for an appropriate response to it. The second part (chaps. 3–4) focuses on the dialectical theology shared by Barth and Bultmann, arguing for an essential continuity between them. The third part (chaps. 5–8) interprets Bult- mann’s demythologizing as the necessary development of dialectical theology. Chapter 1 begins by identifying the problem, which I call the “myth of the whale and the elephant,” based on a well-known phrase from one of Barth’s last letters to Bultmann. Barth’s description is mythological in the sense that Bultmann means the word, and thus the task of reinterpreting their relationship is itself an exercise in demythologizing. As with Bultmann’s own programmatic essay from 1941, I begin my own demythologizing program by looking at pre- vious attempts. There is no shortage of past discussions of the Barth- Bultmann relation, but two works stand out as being of decisive significance. The first is Eberhard Jüngel’s Gottes Sein ist im Werden and the second is Christophe Chalamet’s . Each Dialectical Theologians author contributes significantly to a greater understanding of where the two theologians converge and diverge, though their respective attempts to specify the disagreement between Barth and Bultmann are unsuccessful. A new understanding of “the whale and the elephant” needs to look at the entire history in a fresh way. To accomplish that I provide in chapter 2 a complete periodization of their relationship, which

xxvii THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING serves to buttress my argument that it is who departed from Barth Bultmann, and not the other way around. While the periodization plays an important role at the beginning, the full support for this argument unfolds over subsequent chapters. The historical overview also addresses the debate over Barth’s own theological development, which is integrally tied up with Bultmann’s. I turn in Part 2 to the task of laying the foundation for my constructive reinterpretation of Bultmann’s hermeneutics. Chapter 3 provides the key to this foundation. Here I set forth a new definition of dialectical theology, what I have termed the “dialectical thesis.” The basis for this new conception is an archaeological investigation into the origins of Barth’s theological revolution. Most scholars, following the lead of Barth’s later reminiscences, focus on the Aufruf of the ninety-three German intellectuals in October 1914. I argue that we ought to look instead at the of the twenty-nine that Aufruf appeared a month earlier. This document made the case for supporting Germany in the war on the grounds of the church’s —a mission mission that was explicitly tied to Germany’s colonialist activities. Barth’s rejection of liberal theology can be understood, I suggest, as a rejection of a constantinian conception of mission, one that conflates the norm of the gospel with the given norms of culture. Dialectical theology is essentially an anticonstantinian theology of mission. Having defined dialectical theology, we turn in chapter 4 to look at Bultmann’s theology in systematic detail in order to see how he affirms and develops the dialectical thesis in his own writings. For the sake of clarity we will first examine his understanding of God, followed by his account of appropriate God-talk. This will serve to demonstrate the continuity between Barth and Bultmann in terms of both the object and the subject of theology. Bultmann’s theology is, according to our analysis, a consistently eschatological, and thus missionary, theology. While Bultmann does not discuss the topic

xxviii INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY of mission to the same extent as Barth, he does make the connec- tion between eschatology and mission explicit in a few key writings, including an especially significant one from 1933, during the . Given this reading of Bultmann, we have to conclude Kirchenkampf that he, too, is a critically realistic dialectical theologian, though I propose replacing critical realism with correlationism to avoid ambi- guity. After chapter 4 our study turns from dialectical theology to demythologizing, understood as Bultmann’s hermeneutical extension of Barth’s theological revolution. The third and final part argues that the program of demythologizing is an essentially . missionary program There are four steps to this argument, corresponding to chapters 5–8. Chapter 5 begins by taking a fresh look at demythologizing through the lens of Eberhard Jüngel, specifically his 1990 lecture on the topic. The debate over demythologizing a half-century ago, par- ticularly within anglophone scholarship, largely operated under the assumption that demythologizing is an apologetic strategy to make Christian faith acceptable, or at least meaningful, to modern people, and the only real dispute then was whether Bultmann went too far or not far enough. Lost amid the academic cacophony was the fact that Bultmann’s program unfolded according to the logic of the kerygma itself, that is to say, according to the of myth. Contrary truth to widespread belief, demythologizing actually stands opposed to the Enlightenment notion that science has ruled out myth. Jüngel is one of the very few to have grasped the genuine basis and significance of Bultmann’s hermeneutical project. Now that we are properly oriented we are in need of a new framework within which to situate Bultmann’s program. If demythologizing is governed by the same logic that makes dialectical theology a theology of mission, it follows that demythologizing must be a hermeneutic of mission. We would expect missiology to provide a

xxix THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

more adequate framework for understanding Bultmann’s hermeneutic, and that is indeed the case. In chapter 6 we look at the burgeon- ing field of intercultural theology and hermeneutics, which developed out of and in some places has supplanted traditional missiologi- cal research. By making the intercultural encounter with the stranger the context within which to interpret the faith, intercultural theology rejects any acultural kernel that stands above the contextual nature of all theological discourse. Instead, all theology is essentially hermeneutics. I draw primarily on the work of Theo Sundermeier to flesh out a dialectical intercultural hermeneutic, which involves a critical anti- constantinianism and a constructive intercultural translation defined by appropriation ( ) and transpropriation ( ). I Aneignung Übereignung call this hermeneutic . Translationism is the hermeneu- translationism tical counterpart to the epistemology of correlationism. “Negatively,” according to Bultmann, “demythologizing is criti- insofar as it conceals the real intention cism of the world-picture of myth of myth. Positively, demythologizing is , in existentialist interpretation that it seeks to make clear the intention of myth to talk about human existence.”20 These two aspects correspond to the two sides of translationism, and they are treated in chapters 7 and 8 respectively. These chapters are the climax of the study and constitute a reinterpretation of demythologizing as a missionary or translationist hermeneutic. Chapter 7 examines Bultmann’s concept of myth. Myth is composed of two elements: (a) objectifying thinking and (b) a foreign world- picture (not a worldview, as has often been wrongly trans- Weltbild lated). The opposition to the first element brings demythologizing very close to Barth, since objectifying thinking is essentially what

20. Rudolf Bultmann, “Zum Problem der Entmythologisierung,” in Kerygma und Mythos, Band , ed. Hans-Werner Bartsch 2: Diskussion und Stimmen zum Problem der Entmythologisierung (Hamburg-Volksdorf: Reich, 1952), 179–208, at 184. All emphasis is original unless otherwise noted.

xxx INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY

Barth understands by the or metaphysics. The concept analogia entis of refers to what missiologists call culture, and in this sense Weltbild demythologizing frees the kerygma from conflation with a cultural context. Bultmann’s program was designed from the start to provide the methodological conditions for opposing the absolutization of German culture. Demythologizing was for the Germany of the Sec- ond World War what Barth’s dialectical revolution in Der Römerbrief was for the Germany of the First World War. Chapter 8 completes the reinterpretation of demythologizing by examining Bultmann’s account of existentialist interpretation. Bult- mann’s hermeneutic, like intercultural translation, involves appropriation and transpropriation, which he calls preunderstanding ( Vorver- ) and self-understanding ( ). Existentialist ständnis Selbstverständnis interpretation is a hermeneutic of intercultural encounter, except that in Bultmann’s case it is primarily the encounter with the kerygmatic subject matter ( )—the cultural other that meets us in the Sache biblical text—which bestows a new self-understanding in the deci- sion of faith. Bultmann understands the term as an Selbstverständnis concept that signifies the deworldlizing ( ) eschatological Entweltlichung dimension of existence-in-faith. By granting a new self-understanding, the eschatological event of the kerygma frees a person from her cultural world and thus opens her to the future, that is, to new sit- uations. Deworldlizing is the soteriological engine empowering the translationist hermeneutic of demythologizing. The conclusion presents an appropriate coda to our study by looking ahead to the future of demythologizing. Now that the old debates have been largely forgotten, the church today is in a position to look at Bultmann’s contributions with fresh eyes. There are many signs that the academic engagement with Bultmann will be characterized by light and not heat. The present work aims to show that those who

xxxi THE MISSION OF DEMYTHOLOGIZING

embrace dialectical theology and those who embrace the mission of the church have every reason also to embrace Bultmann’s hermeneutical program.21

* * * * *

Heinrich Balz opens his foundational essay on hermeneutics and mission by clarifying the necessity of interpretation. “Hermeneutics is necessary,” he says, “because the truth is elusive. What is normal, commonplace, and apparently self-evident largely reveals what is false and conceals what is true.”22 This is as valid with respect to scrip- ture as it is with regard to Bultmann himself. Demythologizing is necessary in both cases, and thus the present work is a demythologizing of demythologizing, an attempt to uncover the truth that has been concealed through years of error disguising itself as self-evi- dence. In the introduction to his work on Barth and Bultmann, James Smart makes the following comment:

It might be thought that the intention in considering the two men together is to attempt once more to bridge the gap between them, to recognize their points both of agreement and of divergence, and then perhaps to establish a theological position in line with their points of agreement but reconciling somehow their separate contributions where they diverge. That would be much too ambitious a project even if it were practicable.23

21. Conversely, this work aims to show that those who embrace Bultmann’s hermeneutical program have every reason to embrace Barth and mission. This is in contrast to Gareth Jones, who claims that in the 1960s theology had to choose between three alternative paths: “towards Barth; forward with Bultmann; or forward away from Bultmann.” Jones assumes that to go with Bult- mann is to abandon Barth. Even more problematically, he claims that going forward with Bult- mann is to go “forward with Martin Heidegger.” See Gareth Jones, Bultmann: Towards a Critical (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), 157. Theology 22. Heinrich Balz, “Hermeneutik und Mission,” 14 (1988): 206–20, at 206. Zeitschrift für Mission 23. James D. Smart, The Divided Mind of Modern Theology: Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), 12–13. 1908–1933

xxxii INTRODUCTION: BULTMANN—MISSIONARY TO MODERNITY

Such a project is indeed ambitious, and it is the very one I have attempted here. Whether it is practicable or not is left to the reader to decide.

xxxiii